MONTHLY REVIEW

Published
by the American Electroplaters Society

Publication
and Editorial Office, 3040 Dirversey Ave., Chicago

VOL.
XVI SEPTEMBER, 1929 No. 9

EDITORIAL

Our annual convention
and meeting at Detroit from every point of view, was a most successful
meeting, and we American Electro-platers Society remembering the hospitality
of our previous meeting at this city, responded by attending in large
numbers, resulting in very fine debates and of diversified opinions,
which tends to hasten progress of many mysteries now pending to be
solved by our fellowship research at Bureau of Standards.

The different expressions
by many of the men in the discussion and debates gave research members
many things to aid them in the determination of what is most interesting
subjects to the industry to investigate first, and each year as we
get better acquainted with these men and understand each other better,
more progress will be made in the investigations.

It is hoped that
our branch officers will see fit to revive interest of their members
in our research fund, and when chairman of the Research Committee sends
out the plans of that committee relative to the continuity of this
work at the Bureau of Standards, get behind the movement personally
and put it over in real A. E. S. style.

If this is done throughout
the society the report of this committee will bring a thrill of pride
to every member of the society, as it will demonstrate the A. E. S.
is still most unselfish and progressive society in the world.

SOME OBSERVATIONS
ON THE CORROSION
OF CHROMIUM PLATE

C. F. Nixon

MR. REINHARDT: Unfortunately,
Mr. Nixon can’t be here today—my name is Reinhardt, and
I am with the Western Clock Company. The work on this paper was done
in the laboratory of the Western Clock Company at La Salle, Ill. The
stork deposited an eight-pound electroplater at Mr. Nixon’s house
a couple of days ago, and that is why he can’t be here (Reads
Mr Nixon’s paper. )

As the use of chromium
plate becomes more general and commonplace it is of increasing importance
that its limitations be clearly recognized. When its electrodeposition
was new it was thought chromium plated ware was permanently beautified,
that its lustrous surface would survive any exposure undimmed and unmarked.
But now that the honeymoon is over the faults of electrodeposited chromium
become more apparent especially to those platers who find their brass
plumbing fixtures coming back with chromium flaked and to those whose
chromium plated auto parts, watch backs, and so forth, have presented
unexpected difficulties—and a paper such as this seems appropriate.

It is our purpose
to deal with the corrosion of chromium from a rather broad point of
view; to observe the behavior of chromium and chromium plate under
a variety of conditions, and from the data obtained to derive, if possible,
an hypothesis by means of which the performance of chromium plated
metals under conditions of exposure not studied may be predicted. With
this end in view it seems desirable to consider the properties of chromium
alone before undertaking to discuss chromium plated metals.

Since electrodeposited
chromium is passive and owes many of its noble metallic properties
to this fact, our first concern is with the nature of this passivity.
Passivity has been thought by some to be due to two allotropic forms
of the same metal, one active and the other passive, by others to high
surface tension, by still others to a wide variety of causes. Ulick
R. Evans, however, at a recent meeting of the American Mining and Metallurgical
Engineers, convincingly supported the oxide film theory. In this paper
he demonstrates that a thin film, usually of oxide, invisible but continuous,
protects, in particular iron, and in general all passive metal, from
the action of materials normally corrosive. When a strip of iron, he
points out, is heated to a high temperature at one end a layer of oxide
is formed which diminishes in thickness with the distance from the
hot end. Toward the middle of the strip, the thickness of the film
is such as gives rise to tempering colors, which fade from deep blue
to light straw, and finally to an area where the film is continuous
but so thin that it is invisible. In this area, indistinguishable in
appearance from the cold end, a drop of copper nitrate does not produce
a deposit of copper on the iron. At the cold end where the film is
not continuous and at the hot end where the film of oxide is thick
and cracked, deposition of copper takes place. Mr. Evans found, also,
that pure iron exposed in dry air will develop the protective film
of oxide in more or less time depending upon the temperature. To clinch
the argument Mr. Evans succeeded in separating the invisible film from
the bare metal by immersing the passive specimen in an iodine solution
He proved its identity by microscopic examination, showing the surface
irregularities of the film corresponded to the irregularities of the
base metal, and even succeeded in photographing fragments of film.
With this much established for iron, it seems reasonable to assume
that the passivity of other metals, including chromium, is also due
to a protective film. It is an attractive theory in the case of chromium;
as will be seen, this theory makes it possible to explain chromium’s
peculiar surface properties.

A discussion of the
solubility of chromium in various corrosive solutions is a necessary
preliminary to this explanation. ”(Active) Chromium,’’ according
to Treadwell and Hall, ”dissolves in hydrochloric, hydrobromic,
sulfuric and oxalic acids with evolution of hydrogen and formation
of chromous, or of a mixture of chromous and chromic salts. The metal
is easily made passive, however, by immersion in nitric acid or by
anodic polarization. Passive chromium retains its luster in the air,
is insoluble in dilute acids, and resembles the noble metals.” It
might be inferred from this quotation that chromium is usually active,
but such an inference would be false. Numerous investigators have demonstrated
that chromium is always passive in air, and becomes active only under
extreme provocation, such as immersion in hydrochloric acid or sulfuric
acid, only to revert to the passive state as soon as removed from the
acid. G. C. Schmidt says that chromium is attacked-by Cl, Br and I
at high temperatures. To expand this rather scanty data, fragments
of pure, electrodeposited chromium varying from .050 in. to .075 in.
in thickness—obtained by plating sheets of copper back to back,
subsequently removing the copper by means of nitric acid—were
immersed in a wide variety of solutions. The following solutions were
without corrosive effects on chromium in ten days at room temperature:

Two oxidizing agents
out of seven, namely ammonium persulphate and potassium chlorate, were
without effect on chromium in 10 days also at room temperature. The
results obtained with the group of oxidizing agents are tabulated below.
(Itemized in Table No. 1, attached)

When chromium is
attacked by pure bromine or, more slowly by bromine water, the action
is peculiar. Corrosion apparently starts at a point or a number of
points and spreads concentrically, the original spot in the center
being etched most deeply. In the light of the oxide film theory the
explanation is simple: bromine, unable to dissolve the protecting film
as a whole, breaks through the film at a weak point and works out,
gradually undermining the oxide layer.

Chromium does not
resist the action of all chlorides; calcium, ferric, cadmium, cobaltous,
cuprous and silver chlorides (dissolved in weak NH4OH) seem
to attack chromium. Both in the case of cuprous chloride and silver
chloride the metal was deposited by immersion on the chromium in spots,
evidently indicating areas where the film producing passivity was broken.

Chromium is also
soluble in warm chromium plating solution.

Before passing on
to a discussion of chromium plated metals it may be found interesting
to pause a moment to consider the relation between the film of oxide
and chromium’s peculiar surface properties. Accepting the film
theory it becomes obvious that the low coefficient of friction and
ability to shed water and molten solder without becoming wet, are not
properties of chromium but of the oxide. It is well known, to continue,
that other metals than chromium do not adhere to chromium when electrodeposited
thereon, which is a natural result if there is a film of oxide covering
the chromium.

Before any plate
will adhere therefore it is necessary to remove the oxide. When the
attempt is made to chromium plate chromium the usual advice is to hold
the part to be plated in the solution long enough to bring it up to
the temperature of the bath—and also to allow time for the dissolution
of the protective layer of oxide.’ It is logical to predict that
other plated metals will stick to activated chromium. To test out this
deduction, strips of chromium plated brass were cleaned, dipped in
10% hydrochloric acid to activate and then quickly, to forestall reformation
of oxide, transferred into a nickel plating bath with the current on.
The’ nickel did not peel when the experiment was properly performed
even after a second coat of chromium was applied.

Chromium
on Various Metals

Electro-deposited
chromium, being passive, acts like a noble metal. When plated upon
any common metal, it offers no electrochemical protection to the base
metal, as do zinc and cadmium; if anything it would tend to accelerate
the corrosion of the underlying metal, because of its lower potential.
Whatever protection chromium does afford against corrosion is due simply
to the fact that it is on top. Its efficiency in this respect is clearly
dependent upon its continuity, and unfortunately chromium deposits
are particularly discontinuous. Grant and Grant (Notes on Hardness
and Structure of Deposited Chromium, Vol. 53, American Electro-chemical
Society.) have demonstrated that a heavy deposit of chromium is covered
by a network of cracks which occasionally are open down to the base
metal. Baker and Pinner, followed up the above mentioned paper by showing
that lighter, commercially practical deposits are discontinuous also
by reason of a system of numerous fine cracks which are found over
the entire plated surface These cracks, they found, decrease in size
as the thickness of deposit increases up to the thickness obtained
by means of 500 ampere minutes per square foot, after which the number
and size of cracks reaching through the plate gradually increase with
thickness.

Since a chromium
plate is at best imperfect and offers no electro-chemical protection
to the base metal, it is to be expected that a chromium plate will
be of no more value in preventing corrosion in any medium corrosive
to the base metal than is a leaky roof in preventing the entrance of
rain. The conclusion was borne out by the results obtained when chromium
plated copper (pure), nickel, mild steel and brass specimens were immersed
in various solutions. Where the action of the corrosive solution on
the base metal was rapid, the chromium deposit soon flaked off. In
cases where the action of the solution upon the base metal was slow
there was no flaking of chromium in the time allowed for the tests,
although corrosion products were observed in the solution or on the
specimen. It is probable that the local couple action between the deposit
and the base metal is of importance in this latter case.

All specimens used
in these tests were plated in Bureau of Standards solution: 33 ounces
per gallon of chromic acid, 33 ounces of sulphate as sulphuric acid,
low trivalent chromium, and about 1 ounce per gallon of iron, which
was the result of tank and heating coil corrosion The time of plating
was 7 minutes, the current density 100 amperes per square foot, and
the temperature 113 degrees F.

Unless otherwise
specified all tests lasted 10 days and were conducted at room temperature.
(The corrosion test results are summarized in Table II )

Judging the results
obtained above with a few possible corrosive agents it certainly behooves
one to proceed with caution when the use of chromium plated metal is
to be considered in connection with liquids. Thorough tests should
be made before chromium plated ware is accepted for any such purpose.

Out-of-door exposure,
which is probably the most common and therefore the most important
type of exposure, remains to be considered. Chromium plated copper
and chromium plated nickel are easily disposed of, since both resist
atmospheric corrosion satisfactorily.

Chromium plated steel
is not durable out of doors. Grant and Grant, in a paper already cited,
submit micro-photographs to demonstrate how rust, which begins at the
bottom of the cracks or pores in the plate and creeps under the chromium,
loosens a small fragment of chromium so that it finally flakes. Baker
and Pinner and Ollard and others have worked with interposed plates
of various metals seeking a combination of deposits that will most
completely protect the base metal from attack.

Chromium plated brass
does not resist atmospheric corrosion, as many platers have found.
Very little has been said on this phase of the subject, however; to
our knowledge no explanation has been offered and therefore the attention
of this section of the paper is centered thereon

Nickel, copper and
brass tarnish when exposed to air, but do not corrode as does steel.
Chromium plated nickel and copper are durable in air but chromium plated
brass is not. It is at once apparent that some unaccounted for reaction
takes place loosening the bond between the brass and the chromium.
High copper brasses, apparently, are not susceptible to this form of
corrosion.

The explanation,
it is believed, lies in a paper by Ralph Abrams, entitled “Dezincification
of Brass.” Briefly, according to Abrams, dezincification of brass
is the dissolving of brass as a whole, the holding of the dissolved
copper in contact with the brass by a membrane, and the subsequent
redeposition of copper by immersion. Abrams used wood, paper or cloth
as a membrane; in the case in question the chromium plate serves both
as the container for the corrosive solution that has found its way
down through the cracks in the chromium to the brass underneath, and
as the membrane to hold the copper salts formed by corrosion in contact
with the brass. Just as described by Grant and Grant in the case of
steel, corrosion, or, in this case dezincification, starts at the bottom
of a pore and spreads gradually under the deposit. In most cases the
redeposited copper is loose and granular and offers no bond to the
chromium to replace the one destroyed. In consequence platelets of
chromium flake off as the dezincification progresses. High brasses
and bronzes of 90% copper or over and nickel silver do not dezincify
(A Furtler Study of the Dezincification of Brass, Cleveland F. Nixon,
Vol. 46), and therefore chromium plate does not peel from these materials.
Further, the nature of surface, be it cast or rolled or filed or fractured,
or polished (referring to the same paper) has been found to determine
sometimes whether or not dezincification takes place. These later qualifying
statements will explain the discrepancy in results thus far reported
by others on this subject.

A number of specimens
of brass exposed (1) out of doors and (2) in a salt spray box on which
the chromium plate failed were examined under a- binocular microscope.
When loose chromium was flicked off with a needle, granular copper
was clearly discernible under the glass and the reddish color apparent
to the naked eye. Referring back to Table II it is seen that chromium
brass in sodium chloride, in zinc chloride, in sodium nitrate and in
sodium sulphate are classed as apparently unattacked during period
of test. If the dezincification idea is right, some dezincification
should have taken place. Experiments were checked and dezincification
was found.

It is logical to
infer that dezincification would take place under other deposits than
chromium, since it-is the membrane that is essential and its nature
incidental. Nickel plated brass specimens immersed in cuprous chloride
solution, alum solution, and sodium chloride solution were examined
after one day’s immersion. Quite large deposits of copper crystals
were found under the pores in the nickel in specimens immersed in the
first two solutions, especially near the edges, and to a lesser degree
on the specimen in the salt solution. The copper was definitely crystalline
and fairly well bonded to the nickel. Only a few blisters in- the nickel
were observed.

Experience has shown
that an intermediate plate of nickel between brass and chromium prevents
the disintegration of the deposit, but an extra plating operation and
polishing operation necessarily increase the cost of refinishing. In
order to learn whether or not a strike deposit of bright nickel or
copper between chromium and brass would serve to prevent failure of
deposit, a large number of out of door exposure tests and salt spray
tests have been run. It was found that while a true strike was inadequate,
a two or three minute bright plate of copper or nickel just prior to
chromium plating was sufficient to secure a reasonably durable plate.
Specimens plated in this manner did not shed chromium at the end of
two months exposure out of doors. The surface of those specimens, however,
especially those having an intermediate copper strike, became covered
with a dark tarnish-like stain which was easily removed by buffing.
Specimens plated with .001” or .002”, of nickel before
the chromium did not stain in this manner and so may be considered
better.

It is possible that
the intermediate plate may be eliminated entirely by using a brass
containing less than 0.370 of arsenic or brass containing a low percentage
of nickel (Nixon, in paper referred to above) These brasses were found
to resist dezincification to a marked extent; if the flaking of chromium
is due to dezincification such alloys should be useful.

Summary

Chromium plate is
passive because of a film of oxide which rapidly forms when active
chromium is exposed to air The presence of this film explains the peculiar
surface properties of chromium, among which is one of particular interest
to platers, the property of shedding all other plates deposited on
it but chromium. Chromium sticks to chromium because chromic acid dissolves
the film of oxide; other metals will stick if the chromium is first
dipped in 10% hydrochloric acid and then immediately into a plating
solution, closing the circuit as the work enters the solution.

Deposited chromium
flakes off when the specimen is immersed in a solution definitely corrosive
to the base metals. When the corrosive medium but slowly attacks the
base metals the chromium deposit may not flake off but corrosion of
the base metal will proceed slowly. In cases, then, where the corrosive
medium is known to attack the base metal the use of chromium plate,
at least without intermediate deposits, is to be avoided. In doubtful
cases thorough tests should be made before chromium plating is adopted.

The flaking of chromium
from brass is considered to be due to dezincification of the brass.
An intermediate plate or possibly the introduction of some substance
such as arsenic to prevent the dezincification of the brass is necessary.
Where the cost of a regular nickel- plate under the chromium is prohibitive
a two or three minute strike of bright nickel or copper will serve
the purpose.

Acknowledgment is
due to John Camenisch, Herman Steinmayer and Bryan Chasteen, of the
Western Clock Company Research Laboratory, who performed most of the
experiments upon which this paper is based.
(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN VAN DERAU:
Mr. Reinhardt will be glad to answer any questions you see fit to ask
him regarding this paper. Are there any questions ?

MR. W. L. PINNER:
The paper referred to a two or three minute bright plate of nickel
over copper or brass before chromium plating. Has Mr. Reinhardt any
idea as to the actual number of ampere minutes or the thickness of
the bright nickel deposit?

MR. REINHARDT: The
thickness was between one and two hundred thousandths. As to the ampere
minutes, I don’t know.

MR. HOGABOOM: Mr.
Nixon brings out a very interesting point, and I am wondering whether
we can accept it as given. It will probably require, as Mr. Nixon would
probably agree, some further investigation. I am wondering whether
dezincification is really the answer to the hair line cracks which
develop upon chromium deposited directly upon brass. If you will deposit
chromium directly upon a die cast zinc base, die cast metal, you will
get hair line cracks, and there can be no dezincification there. It
is my opinion (I may be in error) that the brass going into a chromium
solution is etched and the entire crystalline boundaries are etched,
and you get inter-crystalline attack, and that is what you get, a bridging
over, then, and you get an attack of that crystal of an etch, you get
a point down, and then the deposit would try to bridge over, and not
completely bridging over, on exposure to atmospheric or to electrolytic
action, would crack. On examination of a number of pieces that had
shown hair line cracks, and from the fact that dezincification occurs
all over a whole surface, rather than in the boundaries of grains or
the inter-crystalline structures of the metal, it is more reasonable
to suppose that there is a solution of the material that is in between
the crystals. It was formerly called Beilby’s cement, but now
they call it an amorphous metal holding the crystals together. If you
examine under a high powered microscope you will find the grain boundaries
are very definitely defined through those grain cracks. It has been
found that brass, having a high copper content, or a low zinc content,
if worked, cold worked, has strains in it, that where the metal is
cold worked that hair line cracks will develop, showing an indication
of those strains that there may be an inter-crystalline attack by the
chromic acid.

MR. REINHARDT: I
would like to say a word about that. I think Mr. Hogaboom is right.
We did not feel that the hair line cracks that appear in chromium are
due to the dezincification, but rather the fact that they flake off.
I mean it explains the mechanism of the flaking off of the chromium
specimens we have examined under the microscope. Chromium will develop
hair line cracks on any metal if it is heavy enough. That point is
clear. So dezincification has nothing to do with the cracks, but rather
it is the lifting off of the flakes.

This experiment of
Mr. Evans is quite interesting. I just want to go into that a minute.
He took a small piece, about a half a square inch of iron, and actually
leached out all the iron on the inside and had this film around the
iron left, so you could actually hold it up and look in it and see
all the surface that was there originally.

MR. HOGABOOM: Mr.
Reinhardt spoke of Dr. Evans’ work. Personally, I think that
every plater in this room ought to read Dr. Evans’ paper. I think
it is one of the most interesting papers that I have had the pleasure
of reading in a long time, and to my mind it explained some of the
difficulties that have been experienced with cold rolled steel. You
that have plated cold rolled steel know that you have had some that
would plate beautifully. Others, cleaned and handled in identically
the same way, would blister or peel. That is mostly true on highly
burnished steel. You have pickled it and found a deposit that you could
rub your finger on and called it carbon, stating, as I have myself,
that they probably put oil on it in the rolling, and then when they
came to anneal it that oil is carbonized and therefore that carbonized
surface was what caused the trouble. It is my opinion, which must be
substan-tiated by data, that in the rolling of highly burnished stock
they use less lubrication, and there is greater friction, due to trying
to get the very dense structure and the highly burnished top. That
friction causes oxidation. I have taken Dr. Evans’ one twentieth
molar nitrate of copper and put it on a little burnished stock and
it has taken two hours before I would get a precipitation of copper,
and during those two hours adding a glass rod of fresh solution directly
upon the spot. If I were to electrolytic pickle that, and, as Dr. Graham
said last night, put hydrogen on so as to reduce that oxide, use cathodic
pickling, I could immediately get a copper spot. Collecting a number
of samples of cold rolled steel, I got everything from an immediate
precipitation of the copper to two hours, according to the stock. So
it is only opinion that Dr. Evans has explained a difficulty that has
been experienced by platers with rolled steel and it is not a carbonized
surface, but an oxidized surface, caused by the friction or the heat
of the friction, due to rolling.

THE BENT CATHODE
TEST FOR CHROMIUM PLATING
AND SOME OBSERVATIONS ON CHROMIUM PLATING

W. L. Pinner & E.
M. Baler

At the time that
the subject of the bent cathode test was presented at the American
Electro-Chemical Society meeting, at Toronto, our attention was called
to the fact that Mr. Sizelove had previously conducted some experiments
and presented the results of those experiments before you, using a
cathode bent at right angles such as we have used. I therefore want
to make acknowledgments to Mr. Sizelove as having preceded us in the
use of a bent cathode for the study of the sulphate effect in chromium
plating baths. I think that all of you who are doing chromium plating
will agree with me that there are many factors outside of the chromium
plating bath itself which will give a defective deposit of chromium.
For instance, a gray deposit of chromium may be traced, or a gray appearing
deposit may be traced as far back as the grinding department—in
a base metal which has not been sufficiently ground. So that after
chromium plating the scratches are so magnified that the inspector
who is supposed to know chromium has rejected it as gray or burnt chromium.
Gray deposits may also be due to burnt nickel which has been insufficiently
buffed, or good nickel which is insufficiently buffed. It may also
be due to smears or finger marks. And a great deal of gray chromium
may be traced to the cleaner line used for cleaning the nickel preceding
the chromium operation. Finally, coming to the chromium plating bath
itself, an anode making poor contact or an anode which is partly insulated
with a covering of lead chromate, may cause gray chromium. And the
solution temperature, current density, or the solution composition
may give a gray appearing deposit of chromium.

The same line of
thought may apply to other defective deposits such as colored spots,
or non-covering, poor throwing power. I wonder, however, how many of
you when a defective deposit of chromium was obtained, have been able
to say to your entire satisfaction, and what is better, to the satisfaction
of your General Manager, that these defective deposits are absolutely
due to a condition in the chromium plating bath, or they are due to
some thing: else. I wonder further how many of you have been sure at
any time that you have been operating your chromium plating bath at
its best condition as far as the bath composition itself is concerned.

These questions and
many others can be answered by the bent cathode test. The bent cathode
test, which can be conducted in about five minutes, and requires no
knowledge of chemistry, is-a plating-test carried on a small scale.
In it, we take a small sized sample of the main bath which may be giving
trouble. In our case we use something around a half a pint of the solution.
This solution is so small that we are sure we have got a uniform temperature
throughout it. For our cathode, we use a piece of sheet copper, one
inch wide, 2” long, the surface characteristics of which we know,
and the type of deposit we recognize as being due to its particular
condition in the bath. For our anode, we use a freshly clean piece
of sheet lead which is so small that we can see whether it is dirty
or not, and we know it is making contact.

Now, in order to
better give you the method of applying the bent cathode test, let us
assume that we are operating a chromium plating process, and from that
we are obtaining a defective deposit of chromium; let us assume that
we have carefully prepared an article or a rack of articles for chromium
plating. We feel that these are buffed correctly, and they have been
cleaned correctly for chromium plating. We feel quite sure that the
temperature in our chromium plating bath is correct and uniform, and
we feel quite sure that we will apply to this article or rack of articles
the correct cathode current density. Let us then plate this article
for whatever time we like, also being sure our anodes are clean, and
making contact, and upon removing the article we find we have obtained
a defective deposit of chromium. It may be burnt, or it may not- be
completely covered, or it may have a colored spot on it. Now, since
all other conditions were believed to be correct, then about the only
thing that can be incorrect is the solution composition itself, and
the only principal thing that might affect the solution composition,
in my opinion, is the chromic acid concentration and the sulphuric
acid concentration. So let us study and see if the proper relation
exists between the chromic acid concentration and the sulphuric acid
concentration by taking a sample of the bath for our plating test.

Now the important
thing is to use in our plating test the same temperature and the same
cathode current density that we use in the main bath. Then, if our
bath is at all at or near the operable range, we will get a cathode
that resembles one of these that I have’ on this card (Shows
card of bent cathodes.) I will pass these around after a bit. These
cathodes, which incidentally were bent at right angles, one inch from
the end, and the bent end protruding towards the anode, were plated
in a bath containing 64 ounces per gallon of chromic acid and starting
off with practically zero sulphate, and increasing the sulphate until
we obtained so much that our throwing power decreased to a marked extent.
We find that as we start out we obtain only a coloring effect on these
cathodes; no chromium is obtained. As we increase the sulphate, we
commence getting chromium in the high current density area, which is
on the protruding bent section, which extends toward the anode. The
amount of chromium on the cathode then increases in extent, and the
coloring decreases until finally we get practically a completely covered
piece, except that down in the very low current density area, which
is in the corner of the bend, there is obtained a bare, mottled appearing
space with the copper showing through As we increase sulphate further,
we get full coverage on the cathode. Then we increase our sulphate
to a still higher degree, keeping our temperature and current density
constant, of course, and again our low current density area is affected
and we get this time what when straightened out appears to be a perfectly
shaped ellipse of bare spot of copper, and that bare spot then spreads
and increases until we only get chromium on the very high current density
area at the tip of the bent section again; and if we had increased
our sulphuric acid content further we would have only gotten a very
nicely cleaned piece of copper.

Slide No. 1. This
shows a diagramatic sketch of the equipment we use for controlling
our chromium plating baths. We have on the outside a water bath which
we contain in a half gallon crock. This is heated by a steam coil,
a closed steam coil, and we have a thermometer suspended in the water
bath for the control of the temperature there. Then, seated on a pedestal,
which is not shown, is our glass container, an ordinary 250 cubic centimeter
beaker, which is about 234” in diameter and 3” high, which
contains the chromium plating solution, which is heated up to the proper
temperature by the water bath, and .we have a thermometer in the chromium
plating bath itself, so as to be sure of the temperature there. This
slide also shows our cathode with its bent section protruding toward
the anode, which is a piece of sheet lead at the opposite side, and
with its sides parallel to the main side of the cathode. Across the
set-up we have a voltmeter for reading the voltage and our current
coming in from the generator through these bus bars, is properly controlled
with a rheostat and with an ammeter in the circuit.

Now I might suggest
that this set-up and this particular bent cathode is specific. It was
built for the control of a chromium plating bath for the production
of bumper bars. With it we get a fairly wide plating range. Now if
you are plating some object which has a more complicated shape, and
requires a more rigid control of the bath than a bumper bar, you may
have to change the shape of the bent cathode Perhaps you would have
to bend it further up, at a more acute angle, or you might use a cylinder
and say arbitrarily that “I shall have to plate so far into that
cylinder in order that my bath will have enough throwing power to do
the job for me.”

Now, having determined
that the bent cathode test was sufficient for control of the bath which
we were using, which was the Bureau of Standards original bath containing
33 ounces of chromic acid, we decided to see if this method of testing
was applicable to other baths containing different amounts of chromic
acid and containing also trivalent chromium and iron which frequently
are met with by intent or otherwise, in chromium plating baths. As
a result of that study, we believe that the sulphuric acid/chromic
acid ratio can not be defined or set without defining the particular
temperature or the particular current density which is being used,
or, conversely, if you wish to keep as many of your variables constant
as possible in your process and decide to keep your current density
and your temperature constant, then it will be necessary to have a
particular ratio for each bath which you use.

Slide No. 2. This
slide shows the sulphate ratio and the way it changes with varying
amounts of chromic acid. I might say, that first these points and the
line drawn through them (pointing to diagram) represent the bounding
lines of that range in which the best cathodes were obtained for each
series which we ran, which series was run the same as the one which
I have shown you. We see that for a bath .2 molar in chromic acid,
that the ratio of chromic acid to sulphate is at this, which we have
marked as 60. Now that 60 means this. In chemists’ nomenclature,
it is the -chromic acid molarity divided by the sulphate molarity;
or, to the plater, the weight ratio would be just twice that. In other
words, for this bath, the center of the plating range would lie where
there are 120 parts of chromic acid to every one part of sulphuric
acid.

Now, while we do
not consider these lines to be perfectly definite, we do believe that
the center of the range included between these lines is definite and
that therefore the center of the range for a bath .2 molar in chromic
acid requires that ratio at the particular temperature and current
density we were using A bath .4 molar requires two-thirds of that ratio
at the same temperature and current density. Further, at the temperature
and current density which we were using, which was 118 degrees F.,
and 150 amperes per square foot, we see that of all the chromium plating
baths, a bath just about .2/ molar in chromic acid that is 33 ounces
per gallon, has about the widest plating range and the ratio there
agrees very well with the other findings in being approximately 50
to 1 or 100 to 1 by weight. Therefore this shows the value in one way
of the bent cathode test over a pure chemical analysis, because if
one starts out and keeps his temperature and current density constant
and says that ”My chromic acid to my sulphate will always be
50 to 1,” if his bath should go from .4 molar up to .2 molar,
he is going to be out here (pointing to 30), which is certainly not
the center of the plating range that is best for him, as found by us.

Slide No. 3. This
shows the effect on the sulphate ratio of vary the trivalent chromium,
keeping everything else constant, increases, no trivalent chromium,
and again we have our 50 to 1 ratio. As the trivalent chromium, keeping
everything else constant, increases, we find that there is a slight
increase in the required sulphate ratio as we go up.

Now I might say that
while the plating range for .4 molar trivalent chromium is as wide,
or maybe wider than the-plating range for over here (pointing) it does
not mean it plates the same These lines include the range in which
the best deposits were obtained, though that doesn’t necessarily
mean fully covered deposits. As a matter of fact, when we got out to
molar trivalent chromium, we couldn’t plot a point because we
couldn’t obtain a condition at the temperature and current density
we were working in which we got a deposit of chromium, and as a matter
of fact the throwing power of the bath seemed to decrease steadily
as trivalent chromium increased

Slide No. 4. This
shows the effect on the sulphate ratio of increasing amounts of iron
in a chromium plating bath, keeping everything else constant and having
no trivalent chromium Again we start off with our pure bath with the
50 to 1 ratio in the center of the plating range, and, peculiarly,
the sulphate ratio seems to increase at the beginning up to about 6
grams per liter of iron, and then to decrease Further than that, the
plating range (and this was a good plating range) is wider in a bath
containing 6 grams per liter of iron than it is with no iron As you
get past six grams per liter of iron, however, the plating range very
markedly contracts, the throwing power decreases, the resistance of
the bath goes up enormously, and the sulphate ratio changes back to
a down grade again

I find that we are
rather late correcting our plating bath which was giving us defective
deposits We will correct it now As we make our bent cathode tests on
this sample of the bath which was giving us a defective deposit, suppose
we should find that we obtain a cathode such as one of these in the
upper row on the card, where we have a color deposit of chromium. Personally,
I have run about one thousand of these things, and I would immediately
recognize that as being low sulphate. So we start out and add a small
known quantity of sulphuric acid to our plating bath until the required
appearing deposit is obtained. We add an equivalent amount, then, of
sulphuric acid, which we can compute, to the main bath. Suppose we
obtain a deposit showing this elliptically shaped bare spot in the
corner, and we know that our sulphuric acid content is high. We then
add some barium salt to precipitate the sulphate, or, better yet, add
chromic acid to reduce the sulphate ratio until we reach the required
appearing cathode. Then we add an equivalent amount to the main bath.

Now suppose, when
we run our bent cathode test that we get a good deposit of chromium.
Then we can forget about our plating bath; it is right, and there is
something else wrong that was giving us the defective deposit of chromium,
and we go to work on that.

Suppose, again, that
we get a poor appearing bent cathode, and’ we try to correct
it with our sulphuric acid and we find that no correction in any direction
will give us the desired deposit? Then we know that we shall have to
change, if we want to get our bath back to its best condition, we shall
have to change some one of our other standard conditions of temperature
or current density. This can best be done with the bent cathode apparatus;
and we may find even that practically no temperature or current density
combination will give us the desired result, in which case we come
to the conclusion that we have a bath which may be like the one I showed
you that has so much trivalent chromium or so much iron in it that
the throwing power and the plating range is practically nil.

Now I want to pass
this card around, and you will note that I have marked on here, under
each cathode, the molar ratio and the weight ratio. That refers to
this chromic acid/sulphuric acid ratio which I have discussed The weight
ratio is the direct weight ratio between ounces per gallon of chromic
acid and ounces per gallon of sulphate

In conclusion, I
might say that at the General Spring Bumper Corporation we have used
the bent cathode test about thirteen months on the control of three
800 gallon chromium plating baths through which we have run an average
production of about one million and a quarter square feet a month.
During this time we have made sulphuric acid analyses, but purely as
a matter of record We have controlled our bath in spite of the sulphuric
acid analyses by the bent cathode test, and during that time we have
reduced our amount of rejected materials from 8% to less than 2% and
we attribute a large part of this reduced amount of rejections to the
bent cathode test. I thank you. (Applause )

CHAIRMAN VAN DERAU:
Any questions on this paper?

MR. MUSICK: In making
those bent cathode tests, what ratio .of anode surface to cathode do
you use?

MR. PINNER: We didn’t
try to get any particular ratio between-anode and cathode surface.
It happens that.we used about the ratio that we are using in our main
bath. However (this is a personal opinion of .mine which I would like
to be checked up on), I don’t think that it makes any difference
in the bent cathode test what size anode or what position the anode
occupies. Surely, if we change the size of the anode or its position
in the test we will get a different type of deposit; but I think that
even then that we could choose the cathodes from the same bath as being
the best ones as we would choose from any other bath; that is, as we
would choose with any other anode.

DR. WM. BLUM: I want
to comment on this paper just briefly, because we are going to refer
to the same subject in the talk of Mr. Farber’s tonight; but
I just want to express the opinion first of all that as a means of
control’ of factory control, to keep within certain favorable
conditions of operation, I thoroughly agree with Mr. Pinner and Professor
Baker that it serves its purpose, so that it is not any question of
the value from that standpoint. I do question, in all frankness (I
have discussed this with them, so this is not the first time they know
we differ)— do question as to whether in the form they used it,
it serves as a means of research to define the best conditions of operation
quite so closely as their slides and curves would indicate. It so happens,
as you look at this card, that you will see- that there are a number
of the specimens which are completely covered, and therefore so far
as the degree of coverage is concerned, you can not distinguish between
whether one ratio or another is slightly different it is better In
other words, this simply indicates the range of composition within
which a satisfactory deposit can be obtained. I don’t believe
that it fixes the exact composition or the exact center of that range
quite as closely as the authors might indicate. I simply mention that
because I believe, as we will explain this evening, that some of our
conclusions, not as to the value of the bent cathode, but of the results
we get with it, are somewhat different from theirs, simply indicating
that it is not as quantitative as might appear from the data that was
shown on the slides.

MR. PINNER: Regarding
Dr. Blum’s remarks, which are quite well brought up, as Dr. Blum
told you, we had previously discussed this, and that was one of the
reasons that I suggested this test was a specific test for the control
of a bath for plating bumper bars and that we can work anywhere within
the range shown on the panels which are being passed around; but that
if you have a more complicated shape to plate than a bumper bar, that
you should have to possibly change the shape of the bent cathode in
order to control your bath more closely.

MR. McGUIRE: I would
like to ask in what form trivalent chromium is added.

MR. PINNER: The trivalent
chromium was manufactured and analyzed We first started out and produced
trivalent chromium by means of introducing chromium carbonate into
the bath, and found we could get-only a limited amount. So in order
to get up as high as .5 molar, we had to reduce the bath with alcohol.
Now I don’t know whether this alcohol had any effect or not,
but I don’t think any of it existed as such after being in chromic
acid for a short while. After reducing the bath with alcohol, it was
analyzed for by the approved methods for trivalent chromium.

FACTS FROM ”OLD TIMER”

In no other branch
of engineering is so much expected of the materials used as there is
in electroplating. In mechanical engineering exactness of detail is
demanded—tolerances are definitely stated. In electrical work
a strict adherence is maintained to carefully worked out formulas.
In chemistry, and especially in analytical work, solutions and compounds
are made the component parts of which have been weighed on balances
that are sensitive to at least a tenth of a milligram.

In electroplating
some chemicals are weighed on a hundred weight scale, or the weight
guessed at, thrown into some water the quantity of which may be ”near
enough” to what it should be, stirred with a stick and it becomes
a plating solution. Electrical connections are made, and how? What
is the optimum number of amperes that can be used for a gallon of a
nickel solution, of any solution? Some anodes are hung in the tank.
What is the surface area of the anodes? Who knows? The work to be plated
is hung on racks or strung on wires and put into the solution. The
current is turned on—and, what is expected ? A definite thickness
of deposit- all over the article regardless of its shape or size. This
must be accomplished, in this record breaking era, in a space of time
that will break all of Faraday’s records. The character of the
deposit must be such that it requires just passing over a coloring
buff or if the plater knows his business no buffing at all When buffing
is to be done the deposit must be such that it cannot be cut through
by a buff running at the ”burning point” speed and with
a composition that should be used on cast iron. It must now stand up
in a salt spray test for an indefinite period and be capable of maintaining
its lustre and protective value after having been-; dragged through
several miles of road that have been ”flooded” with calcium
chloride. These requirements are the test of the ability of the foreman
plater but above all the final approval is withheld until the costs
have been pared to a figure that looks like a zero. If this class of
work is not produced at the required cost ”A Warning” is
sounded that better plating must be had or the whole electroplating
industry will be like Model X—discontinued.

PAPER ON CHROMIUM SOLUTION
UPKEEP

Very little has been
written on the upkeep or maintenance of a Chromium plating bath.

The writer has a
very simple method, which will apply to any chromic acid bath, which
does not require analysis, but only by observation of the chromium
deposit.

Poor throwing power
is due to either too much sulphate, too high temperature, or, poor
contact.

Be sure that all
connections are good, and that the temperature of the solution does
not rise above 115 degrees F. Temperatures between 110 degrees F. and
115 degrees F. give a good bright deposit, and a good throwing power.

The sulphate content
is the most important factor of your throwing power. Thirty-two ounces
per gallon chromic acid, sulphate conservation, one-third ounce per
gallon of water. This solution can be maintained indefinitely by carefully
observing the deposit.

To test for sulphate
take out one gallon of solution, heat up to proper temperature, and
connect up for plating. Add 1 CC of sulphuric acid. If throwing power
increases, add another CC, and keep adding until throwing power is
at its highest point of efficiency. If you have used three CC to one
gallon, and your tank holds 350 gallons of solution, it will take 1050
CC of sulphuric to bring up the bath.

On the other hand
if by adding one CC of sulphuric acid, to the one gallon of solution,
the throwing power decreases, it shows that the sulphate is too high.
Barium Carbonate is used for decreasing the sulphate.

Proceed as before
by adding one-fourth ounce Barium Carbonate.

If throwing power
increases add another one-fourth, and keep adding until throwing power
is at the highest efficiency. If one-half Barium Carbonate is added
and the Chrome bath holds 350 gallons of solution it takes eleven pounds
of Barium Carbonate to reduce the sulphate to the proper proportions.
When the sulphate is high, and you are plating Chrome over nickel,
spots of nickel will show Where the Chrome does not cover, and there
spots remain bright. If sulphate is low these spots Oxidize or stain,
and has a dull rainbow color.

It is not necessary
to throw out your Chromium Bath if you use the above methods.

COOKING IN METAL POTS

Except there he the
grossest carelessness, there is no danger in cooking soups, meats,
vegetables, and fruits, or in making marmalade, pickles and preserves
in metallic cooking utensils. It is true that some of the metal Foes
into solution, that the food ”eats” the utensil to some
extent. It is also true that the heavy metals are poisonous, mercury
and arsenic highly so and iron slightly so and the others in between.
However, the amount of metal which is dissolved from the utensil in
the process of cooking is so very small that the food which dissolves
it is wholesome. This applies to copper kettles, tin coffee pots, iron
pans and every other kind and variety of cooking utensil.

* * * *

Dr. E. E. Smith has
recently published a book in which he gives the results of his studies
of foods cooked in aluminum kitchenware. He quotes the opinions of
many others in this country and Europe based on all kinds of chemical
analyses. Examinations were made of many foods cooked in such kettles,
pots and pans. There were meats and vegetables, milk, both sweet and
sour pickles, and other objects soaked in vinegar; fruits, sweet and
sour, alkalis and carbonated mineral waters.

It was found that
in every case the contents had absorbed some aluminum from the kettle.
These analyses were supplemented by Very careful weighing of the pots
before and after, and examination of their surfaces with magnifying
glasses to discover evidence that the food had absorbed some of the
metal. It was found that some aluminum had gone from the pan into the
pickle or other food. But in no instance had the food taken up a harmful
amount of the metal.

* * * *

Analysis of uncooked
food for aluminum showed that we get some of this metal in whatever
we eat, cooked or uncooked. The amount absorbed from the pot in cooking
is trivial compared with the amount the food naturally contains.

The country is being
flooded with propaganda which sets forth that cancer is caused by eating
foods cooked in aluminum vessels. There is no suggestion of scientific
proof of this anywhere in the literature.

A. E. S. PAGE
"Assembled Expert Scraps With and Without Significance"

Find
Substitute for Platinum

New York, Sept. 8.—(A.P.
)—Discovery of a metal that, while red hot is stronger than steel,
was announced today by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing
Company. The, new alloy can be used in the moving parts of internal
combustion engines and in other extremely hot places.

Konel is the alloy’s
name, and it is made of cobalt, nickel and ferrotitanium. The name
is a combination of cobalt and nickel. It was made originally to fill
the need of radio for a cheaper substitute for $180 an ounce platinum
for filaments.

——————

A Little
Trust

A little bit of sunshine,
a little bit of rain,
A little snow and winds that blow—and spring is here again.
The summer days are ending, the nights are grow chill;
But roses rare will bloom as fair again—I know they will!
A little bit of sorrow, a little bit of grief, A summer’s day that slips
away, and then the falling leaf,
Aye, God has made the seasons, yet God will bring us through,
And we shall learn God’s gifts return some day— I know they do!
A little bit of trouble, a little bit of wrong,
But let us smile a little while —it never is for long.
Oh, have the faith of springtime, oh, have a little trust,
And tears will end and things will mend some day—I know they must!

——————

SCIENCE SPLITS HYDROGEN
GAS AT CONVENTION

So Now “Books Must
Be Rewritten”

Minneapolis, Minn.,
Sept. 10. (A. P.)—The greatest scientific discovery of 1929,
splitting of a supposedly indivisible element, hydrogen gas, in two
substances, was demonstrated to the American Chemical Society today.

Dr. K. F. Bohnhoeffer,
a shy, blonde young German, who was a 17 year old infantryman in front
line trenches at the close of the World War, is the discoverer.

Dramatically he set
his proof before the eyes of the chemists in a spot of light upon the
wall of a University of Minnesota lecture room. Like a moving finger
it wrote the forecast of a revolution in physical chemistry This revolution
was described enthusiastically by an older man, the chairman of the
session, Dr. Hugh S. Taylor of Princeton University.

”It is the
greatest scientific discovery of 1929 in physical chemistry,” he
said. ”It is the first tangible proof of existence in supposedly
indivisible molecules of what we may call a different kind of molecule.
It is the first proof of something forecast mathematically by the new
wave-mechanics. It means that our text-books on physical chemistry
will have to be rewritten.”

Dr. Bohnhoeffer passed
some ordinary hydrogen gas over charcoal chilled to the intense cold
of liquid air. This process converted it into the new form which he
called parahydrogen.

He pumped this parahydrogen
over a hot wire where it interfered with the flow of heat through the
wire. This heat flow was indicated by a spot of light on the wall.
Next he converted some parahydrogen back into ordinary hydrogen, and
when it passed over the wire, the spot of light changed its position.
This demonstrated, he said, that the two hydrogen gases are; different
physically, one making the heat flow faster than the other.

The two also have
different boiling and different freezing points, but Dr. Bohnhoeffer
said he has not found any difference in their chemical effects.

The discovery has
no present commercial use, but the new world in chemistry which it
seems to open is important. For one thing, hydrogen is one of the elements
much used in the new synthetic chemistry, which changes petroleum into
coal and coal into gasoline. For another, the cracking is one of the
first proofs of a long held theory that atoms somewhat resemble small
solar systems, in which electrons, instead of worlds, spin around a
central nucleus.

Dr. Bohnhoeffer said
he found that parahydrogen is formed by electrons spinning in opposite
directions, and that they both spin in the same direction to make the
opposite form, which he calls orthohydrogen. Theoretically the spin
makes them into tiny magnets, thereby accounting for their sticking
together to form a tangible substance.

——————

Cleveland, O., Sept.
10.— (A. P.)—A prediction that metallurgists will learn
the secrets of controlling atmospheres, which will revolutionize the
steel industry, was made before the National Metals Congress here today
by Robert G. Guthrie of Chicago, vice-president of the American Society
for Steel Treating.

Tremendous possibilities
have been opened up by the development of furnaces designed to control
atmospheres, opening the way for treating steel with economy and speed
far surpassing present methods, Guthrie said.

A vast amount of
research still faces metallurgists, but eventually there will be a
great number of new gases brought into use. When that time is reached,
it may be possible to go even further than surface treatment of steels
and change the inner structure through treatment at low temperatures
with gases, Guthrie predicted.

Greater understanding
of the affinities of gases and metals will open up new resources in
the future, he said.

——————

IdiotorialsThey won’t let the prisoners gamble in Sing Sing. They don’t
want to give a place a bad name.

——————

Buttered ToastsHere’s to the good old fashioned girl who never lives beyond
her alimony.

——————

Take It Or Leave
ItSamson wasn’t a song and dance artist, but he brought down the
house.

——————

Financial NoteIt’s easy nowadays for a man to earn an honest living. He
doesn’t have much competition.

——————

Health HintIt’s against law to sell stale eggs unless the eggs were laid
before the law was passed.

——————

Asaps FablesOnce upon a time there was a clerk who never kept his eye on the
clock. He bought himself a wrist watch.

——————

Among the Illiterati
You can buy Shakespeare by the volume, but they sell Bacon by the pound.

The information contained in this site is provided for your review and convenience. It is not intended to provide legal advice with respect to any federal, state, or local regulation.
You should consult with legal counsel and appropriate authorities before interpreting any regulations or undertaking any specific course of action.

Please note that many of the regulatory discussions on STERC refer to federal regulations. In many cases, states or local governments have promulgated relevant rules and standards
that are different and/or more stringent than the federal regulations. Therefore, to assure full compliance, you should investigate and comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations.